Posted on 12/31/2002 6:39:08 AM PST by Afronaut
Edited on 07/06/2004 6:38:33 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
WASHINGTON -- White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales, the soft- spoken son of migrant farm workers, has emerged as the overwhelming favorite for a Supreme Court nomination in the months ahead, a move that would give President Bush a historic and politically powerful chance to name the first Latino to the nation's highest court.
(Excerpt) Read more at nj.com ...
"The benefits of free trade would seem clear, and yet some remain oblivious to the magic and the resilience of opening more markets at precisely the moment history beckons us to take wing and realize the promise of a New World Order in which ideas and commerce are more freely exchanged through the global village. Some seem intent on sticking there collective heads in the sand."
This is the url. I used the search and the word NAFTA to get to it.
http://www.c-span.org/search/index.asp?Recordset41_Action=Filter%28%22%28C2K+LIKE+%27%25nafta%25%27%29+OR+%28Candidate+LIKE+%27%25nafta%25%27%29+OR+%28CurrentEvent+LIKE+%27%25nafta%25%27%29+OR+%28CurrentEvent1+LIKE+%27%25nafta%25%27%29+OR+%28CurrentEvent2+LIKE+%27%25nafta%25%27%29+OR+%28CurrentEvent3+LIKE+%27%25nafta%25%27%29+OR+%28EventDescription+LIKE+%27%25nafta%25%27%29+OR+%28EventName+LIKE+%27%25nafta%25%27%29+OR+%28Issue+LIKE+%27%25nafta%25%27%29+OR+%28Issue1+LIKE+%27%25nafta%25%27%29+OR+%28Issue2+LIKE+%27%25nafta%25%27%29+OR+%28Issue3+LIKE+%27%25nafta%25%27%29+OR+%28Location+LIKE+%27%25nafta%25%27%29+OR+%28Series+LIKE+%27%25nafta%25%27%29%22%29&Recordset41_Position=PAR:
Copy it all and put it in the address bar slot.
NAFTA 10th Anniversary Ceremony & Panel
Speakers: Fmr. Pres. Bush, Fmr. Canadian P.M. Mulroney &
Fmr. Mexican Pres. Salinas discuss NAFTA on the 10th
anniversary of the North American Free Trade Assn.
[Monday, December 09, 2002] - Washington, DC
Bush starts talking about 1:40 mins. It has been edited because in the original he used the words "New World Order" at least three times in about two minutes. In this edition he only says them once.
I would copy it now because I'm sure this won't stay up forever.
Thanks Madfly I thought you might have it
This Gonzales issue is a perfect example. Without having the facts, some people have attacked Gonzales as being a pro-abortion person. It is not true, and demonstrates a willful attempt by some people to derail a possible nomination and also smear both Gonzales and the President.
Because of folks like this (and I am not talking about you), those of us who are pro-life but willing to function in the political realm of compromise are getting a bit exasperated. Here is an example: the partial birth abortion law only stops a certain number of abortions. I have seen people on threads who mock the President for supporting this law as "making an easy choice" and not "really being against abortion totally." The fact that it is a FIRST STEP apparently isn't enough for folks like that.
Dog Gone is exactly right. Those who are ONLY concerned about abortion (to the exclusion of national defense for example) are alienating potential allies and are causing resentment and division, when they instead should be trying to get as many allies as they can.
I don't know why some people behave this way, but it is why single-issue voters are beginning to annoy a lot of people.
Your statement to Dog Gone was not based on anything he said, but simply because you disagree with him on tactics. I think it was poorly done of you.
Just who are these people who are doing such extreme harm to 'the movement' through their extreme 'purity'?
This Gonzales issue is a perfect example. Without having the facts, some people have attacked Gonzales as being a pro-abortion person. It is not true, and demonstrates a willful attempt by some people to derail a possible nomination and also smear both Gonzales and the President.
It has been obvious for some time that whoever the President picks is going to go through the meatgrinder from both the left AND the right. This is the big enchilada.
At this point, very few people have enough information to make an informed judgement in this particular case, although certain facts are beginning to emerge from the clutter.
Because of folks like this (and I am not talking about you), those of us who are pro-life but willing to function in the political realm of compromise are getting a bit exasperated.
Compromise is one of those words that can be twisted any old way...when in fact it a question of degree. Conservatives have worked too hard for the GOP to stand silently by if leadership is going to give away the farm, though. That's why people are very watchful. Does the name Souter ring a bell?
Here is an example: the partial birth abortion law only stops a certain number of abortions. I have seen people on threads who mock the President for supporting this law as "making an easy choice" and not "really being against abortion totally." The fact that it is a FIRST STEP apparently isn't enough for folks like that.
Mistrust of elected officials is not really a bad thing...in fact, we have a duty to watch them all, even those we think of as solid...too many men and women to count have caught whatever it is in the DC water supply.
As to the PBA ban, that's a no-brainer black and white issue anyhow. Republican leaders (now that they control the levers of power) to maintain any bit of credibility with the base, had better move and move fast...no matter what they may or may not do later.
Dog Gone is exactly right. Those who are ONLY concerned about abortion (to the exclusion of national defense for example) are alienating potential allies and are causing resentment and division, when they instead should be trying to get as many allies as they can.
As I said earlier, this 'one-issue voter' is a mythical creature.
Your statement to Dog Gone was not based on anything he said, but simply because you disagree with him on tactics.
No, it's simply because I have watched party 'moderates' (those who could give a rip about the scourge of abortion) use that tactic for years, and it ticks me off.
I think it was poorly done of you.
You are certainly entitled to your opinion.
This appointment is a biggie, it's going to have ramifications that last (literally) for decades. It's too important to play politics with, it's too important to attempt to woo Hispanic voters with and it's too important to hand off to a buddy because you think he's a good guy.
I don't know much about Gonzalez, but if there's any question about his credentials or which way he might lean if forced to make a subjective decision, now is the proper time to ask.
I wasn't particularly worried about the appointment, till I see the usual suspects attacking you over a simple question of, is he a Conservative
I also see them labeling anyone who wonders as "one issue" Nice to know that some things never change.
I don't know much about Gonzalez, but if there's any question about his credentials or which way he might lean if forced to make a subjective decision, now is the proper time to ask.
Your comments definitely bear repeating...and the paragraph I boldened should be the words on every onservatives lips right now.
Nice job...
This is important.. It's worth asking about. It's worth knowing.
^ IMO.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.